Theos-Talk Archives (November 2001 Message tt00237)

Jerry:

Thanks for your comments.

JERRY: I see [Atman] as the RELATIVE absolute in man.
… If we look at the microcosm-of-the macrocosm
teaching, then in the same way that the 7 planes are
divided into three upper and four lower, 
with the three upper being absolute relative to the
four lower, so the principles are divided into three
upper and four lower - the three upper being permanant
relative to the four lower, and atman the most 
permanent of all

I cannot help wondering if terms such as “absolute”
and “permanent” can be qualified with the word
“relative”

Also, in the ES papers, we are told that the true
seventh principle is not Atma at all, but the Auric
Egg, or AE. Atma, we are told, is no principle, which
makes more sense to me.

JERRY: In my view, there is no absolute (whatever that
means) in "man" at all.

It might make more sense to say that man is in the
Absolute than to say that the Absolute is in man.

************************

JERRY: Most Theosophists will say that evolution is to
develop self-consciousness

Possibly, but there is a difference between saying
that something is happening and saying that there is
absolute purpose in things.

JERRY: They may not able to tell you what it is that
is actually evolving and developing that
self-consciousness.

In Zen we are taught that this is something we may
never know.

JERRY: How can atman evolve and not be changing?
Logically it can't.

The Absolute supposedly is totally passive, and yet
somehow is the source of all activity. Nobody has
ever explained this to my satisfaction. THE VISHNU
PURANA uses the metaphor of perfume emitting from a
flower. It seems to me the flower is quite active. 
Aristotle had an argument in his METAPHYSICS in which
he developed the idea of the First Cause, bt it has
been too long since I read him & I do not remember the
argument. Anyway, the Absolute is supposed to be
uninvolved and therefore non-evolving. In order to
get E-volved you have to get IN-volved, an old teacher
of mine used to say.

Read Aristotle. He probably has the best explanation.

**********************************

JERRY: If we use "monad" in its proper sense of being
indivisible and permanent (vajra) then we can't
logically talk about dual monads, human monads,
mineral monads, and the like.

I never said they were permanent, only indivisible. 
Why can we not logically talk about hman monads, etc?

******************************

JERRY: Only manas is consciousness (because it is in
some sense equivalent to human consciousness).

I think manas is conscious on its plane, which is to
say, it is conscious of concepts. Sense consciousness
belongs to lower “planes” and principles.

JERRY: There is, all the while, something within us
that can transcend all of these principles.

Really? The Higher Ego (which is a sub-principle)
transcends sense consciousness, but does not transcend
the Absolute.

JERRY: Atma-buddhi together with higher manas function
together as the 
Reincarnating Ego. does it not?

It is actually the Higher Ego, but the HE presupposes
the existence of its noumena, atma and buddhi, thus
the references to atma-buddhi-manas. 

JERRY: Does not the Reincarnating Ego yield up its own
"aroma" after it is done (else what is its purpose?)?

As you know, I would say there is no purpose. Things
simply are.

*****************

<<<Gerald: “[the raindrop and the ocean] are on
different planes of existence - the ocean exists in a
different place. 

[Steve:] Actually, “planes” are of consciousness, and
since both the raindrop and the ocean are accessible
to the same consciousness without modification, they
are on the same plane.>>>

JERRY: I think you may be confusing things here, and I
don't follow 
what you are saying here at all. Is the physical plane
(ie matter and 
material objects) conscious?

Matter is an object of consciousness and matter
consciousness constitutes a “plane” of consciousness. 
It can also be categorized differently from other
objects of consciousness such as dharmas.

JERRY: “Blavatsky says that all we have to do is to
close our eyes, and we are on the mental plane.

This is a shallow form of Pratyahara. Vision
consciousness is shut out partially so we are not on
that “plane.” Of course, one can see certain subtle
realities with eyes closed. I have observed my aura
with eyes closed.

*************************

JERRY: Manas recieves all of the sensory data from the
5 physical senses

I think manas is supposed to be consciousness of
concepts, which are considered to be objects of
consciousness, distinct from sense data. Sense data
are perceived at lower levels. Kosmic manas, or mahat
in HPB’s system, has for its contents the Ideas of
Plato as described in the TIMAEUS. The Platonic
Ideas, in other words, are objects of consciousness
for mahat, but sensory data are not.

JERRY: Above this is buddhi, which is usually
conceived as intuition, as a direct sense of knowing
and communicating. Buddhi is above words and thoughts,
and includes such things as sounds and images. 

My understanding is, the seat of intuition is Higher
Ego (Buddhi-Manas) which is the seventh sub-principle
of Manas and the first and lowest sub-principle of
Buddhi. It is the cusp, at which manas begins to
merge with Buddhi and becomes indistinguishable from
it. Buddhi, we are told, is the seat of conscience,
an idea found in THE VISHNU PURANA and later in
Theosophy.

JERRY: Above buddhi is atman, the general principle of
subjectivity that gives us each a sense of independent
permanent selfhood or individuality. … The entire
subject and object duality (our sense of being an I
that is conscious of, and separate from, a not-I) is
caused and maintained by the upper three principles,
and this illusive sense of things is maya.

The “sense of independent permanent selfhood or
individuality” is Ahamkara, which is usually
associated in Theosophy with Kama-Manas, not the three
superior principles.

Steve


--- Gerald Schueler <gschueler@earthlink.net> wrote:
> <<<Gerald: “Does Atma change over time?”
> [Steve:]In theory, no, since it is the Absolute in
> man. If we accept the HPB statement quoted by Peter
> that "I make no difference between my Seventh
> Principle and the Universal Spirit or Parabrahm,”
> then Atman is absolute and therefore
> unchangeable.>>>
> 
> JERRY: Ah, but I see it as the RELATIVE absolute in
> man. In my view, there is no absolute (whatever that
> means) in "man" at all. Again, we have to interpret
> here because Blavatsky makes some conflicting
> statements. In the above, the "no difference" does
> not necessarily imply an equality. If we look at the
> microcosm-of-the-macrocosm teaching, then in the
> same way that the 7 planes are divided into three
> upper and four lower, with the three upper being
> absolute relative to the four lower, so the
> principles are divided into three upper and four
> lower - the three upper being permanant relative to
> the four lower, and atman the most permanent of all
> - but I still think that atman has to be part of
> maya, as a logical fallout of her planes and globes
> model of 7 planes containing within htem the 7
> principles.
> 
> ************************
> 
> <<<<<<Gerald: “What is the purpose of evolution, and
> what is evolving in space-time?”
> [Steve:] One might as well ask “What is the purpose
> of Maha Pralaya?” One way to express the insight
> one receives at the moment of enlightenment – and I
> admit this is very poor - is:
> It is,
> Things are,
> That’s it.>>>
> 
> JERRY: This sounds more like my own answer, one that
> manas will never accept. Most Theosophists will say
> that evolution is to develop self-consciousness,
> although they may not able to tell you what it is
> that is actually evolving and developing that
> self-consciousness. Many think it is the Monad, the
> atma-buddhi, that is evolving, and I was directing
> my question to them. Another way of asking this is:
> How can atman evolve and not be changing? Logically
> it can't. Everything within the entire 7-plane solar
> system is evolving because everything is Motion.
> 
> **********************************
> 
> <<<Gerald: “Is a "monad" indivisible or not?"
> [Steve:] The name implies that it is. The Greek
> atomos means “not to divide.” Monads are atomic,
> and yet not material atoms in the scientific
> sense.>>>>>>
> 
> JERRY: Right, the word monad is used by HPB as an
> English equivalent to the Sanskrit paramanu. But if
> we use "monad" in its proper sense of being
> indivisible and permanent (vajra) then we can't
> logically talk about dual monads, human monads,
> mineral monads, and the like. Blavatsky did this
> because no English words were available for the
> ideas she was trying to get across, but literally
> this is all illogical. The result of her doing this
> is that now Theosophists all seem to think that
> these things are independently real and permanent
> which is not the case.
> 
> ******************************
> 
> <<<We are told that Atma and Buddhi are both
> unconscious on this plane.>>>
> 
> JERRY: Which plane? In a sense, none of the
> principles is actually conscious per se. In another
> sense, only manas is consciousness (because it is in
> some sense equivalent to human consciousness). In
> another sense we are consciousness itself and focus
> via the principles on the planes. And yet there is,
> all the while, something within us that can
> transcend all of these principles.
> 
> Atma-buddhi together with higher manas function
> together as the Reincarnating Ego. does it not? Does
> not this Reincarnating Ego grow/change over time?
> Where does the "aroma" of each life go after death,
> and why is it needed? Does not the Reincarnating Ego
> yield up its own "aroma" after it is done (else what
> is its purpose?)?
> 
> *****************
> 
> <<<Gerald: “[the raindrop and the ocean] are on
> different planes of existence - the ocean exists in
> a different place. 
> 
> [Steve:] Actually, “planes” are of consciousness,
> and since both the raindrop and the ocean are
> accessible to the same consciousness without
> modification, they are on the same plane.>>>
> 
> JERRY: I think you may be confusing things here, and
> I don't follow what you are saying here at all. Is
> the physical plane (ie matter and material objects)
> conscious? Certainly not in any sense that we know
> of. Blavatsky says that all we have to do is to
> close our eyes, and we are on the mental plane. She
> is quite right. When we open our eyes again, we are
> on the physical plane. So, each plane and subplane
> corresponds to a state of our own possible
> consciousness. In this manvantara, only 7 basic
> conscious states or planes are possible to us. In
> order to be conscious on a plane, we have to use
> appropriate organs - the physical senses for the
> physical plane, the mind/manas for the mental plane
> and so on for each plane. The raindrop begins on a
> plane separate from the ocean - it has no senses
> with which to perceive the ocean at first - and as
> it falls it reaches the ocean and merge with it in
> the same way that atma-buddhi-manas will one day
> reach Beness and merge with it.
> 
> *************************
> 
> <<<<[Steve:] Maya exists only in consciousness. It
> comes into existence when consciousness comes into
> existence. Since consciousness comes into being and
> passes out of being from moment to moment, so does
> maya. Steve>>>>
> 
> JERRY: Here is how I see it: Manas is human
> consciousness. Manas recieves all of the sensory
> data from the 5 physical senses and interprets it in
> terms of a worldview. It has thoughts and concepts.
> Above this is buddhi, which is usually conceived as
> intuition, as a direct sense of knowing and
> communicating. Buddhi is above words and thoughts,
> and includes such things as sounds and images. Above
> buddhi is atman, the general principle of
> subjectivity that gives us each a sense of
> independent permanent selfhood or individuality. All
> of these are maya in the sense that they do not tell
> us what is really going on. They maintain our sense
> of duality. The entire subject and object duality
> (our sense of being an I that is conscious of, and
> separate from, a not-I) is caused and maintained by
> the upper three principles, and this illusive sense
> of things is maya. 
> 
> Those who believe that atman is truly permanent and
> eternal, in order to convince me, will have to do
> more than simply quote Blavatsky. They will have to
> show me how such a thing can logically fit into her
> planes and globes model and her theory of evolution.
> (Her evolution theory itself strongly suggests that
> atman is evolving via the Reincarnating Ego, and
> logically something that evolves/changes can't be
> permanent.) So far, no one has done that. I don't
> think anyone can. But I am certainly willing to
> listen.
> 
> Jerry S.
> -- 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
http://personals.yahoo.com